Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_blueprint_functions

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all callable graphs in a Blueprint, including interface overrides, macros, delegate signatures, and optional subgraphs or ubergraphs.

Instructions

List the callable graphs of a Blueprint. Enumerates the FULL graph set (UBlueprint::GetAllGraphs), not just Blueprint->FunctionGraphs: an INTERFACE override graph lives in ImplementedInterfaces[].Graphs, which FunctionGraphs alone misses (a function that exists would read as "missing"). Each entry carries graph_type so the caller can tell a plain function from an interface override, a macro or a delegate signature.

Returns: { blueprint_name: string, functions: [{ name, node_count, graph_type, is_interface, interface_name?, is_user_constructed }], function_count: int, own_function_graph_count: int, interface_graph_count: int, macro_graph_count: int, delegate_graph_count: int, ubergraph_count: int, subgraph_count: int, graphs_total: int } -- graph_type is function|interface|macro|delegate_signature|ubergraph|subgraph; is_user_constructed is just node_count>2, i.e. "someone wrote something beyond the auto Entry/Result terminators", because implementing an interface pre-creates empty graphs. subgraph_count>0 with include_subgraphs off is the warning that collapsed graphs exist and are not listed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
blueprint_nameNoName of the blueprint. Pass the FULL path: a short name that matches two assets (a backup copy shares the original's name) resolves to one of them SILENTLY, and the listing then describes the wrong asset.
blueprint_pathNoAlias of `blueprint_name` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `blueprint_name`.
include_subgraphsNoOptional bool (default false): also list nested/collapsed sub-graphs reached by GetAllGraphs but owned by no top-level list (graph_type='subgraph')
include_ubergraphsNoOptional bool (default false): also list the EventGraph/ubergraph pages (graph_type='ubergraph'). Off by default so 'functions' stays function-shaped.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered; the description's contribution is the enumeration semantics (full graph set including ImplementedInterfaces[].Graphs) and the derived-field caveats (is_user_constructed is just node_count>2; subgraph_count>0 is a silent-truncation warning). The silent-truncation warning is a real behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, but there is no note on authentication, cost, or failures.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well front-loaded: the opening sentence states the action and the scope caveat follows immediately. The 'Returns:' block is long and heavy on inline jargon, but since no output schema exists it is doing necessary work rather than padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema present, documenting the return shape (functions array, graph_type enum values, the per-type counts) is the right call, and it is done thoroughly. The one gap is that zero parameters are marked required, yet the description never states what happens if blueprint_name is omitted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains blueprint_name's full-path requirement, the blueprint_path alias, and both boolean flags; that sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only one parameter-linked insight, the interaction between include_subgraphs being off and subgraph_count being non-zero.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb+resource ('List the callable graphs of a Blueprint') plus an explicit scope statement: it enumerates the FULL graph set via UBlueprint::GetAllGraphs rather than just FunctionGraphs, calling out interface override graphs that would otherwise read as 'missing'. That is a genuine scope distinction, but it never names a sibling (e.g. get_blueprint_functions_list or list_overridable_functions), so an agent still has to infer which of the many blueprint-listing tools to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear situational rationale: reach for this tool when deciding whether a function exists, because a FunctionGraphs-only listing would wrongly report an interface implementation as missing. It also warns that subgraph_count>0 with include_subgraphs off means collapsed graphs exist but are not listed. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming an alternative tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools